On-Topic 5 Nations Condemn Israel's Settlement" Plan

[xbuzzerx]

I don't support violence against anyone except those that commit violence and hurt other people. You will never hear me say even about groups I despise that they should be murdered or killed. There is a difference to wanting to stop people who are committing violence and put them away and advocating violence against innocent civilians. I have never advocated such thing.

The problem is that virtually every indication you've given in this discussion is that you believe all of Islam is hateful and violent so... what is your proposed solution?

 

[TX-Beau]

I don't want to make it illegal to be a ignorant asshat but ignorant asshats who advocate violence are a special kind of asshat. These asshats become potential risks for if they decide to enact their ideas then many lives will be lost. The only criteria for an extreme belief is simple. Does your ideology advocate violence against innocent civilians. You can have weird or fucked up ideas but as soon as you start advocating death and destruction then there is a problem.

Also I don't know if you are aware but the government keeps tabs on Neo Nazi groups all of the time. In fact Neo Nazis are notoriously paranoid of cops. Hell that is how Matt Hale was cought. He was profiled and they used a police informant to get him to admit his crimes. The government keeps tabs on alot of extremist groups.



No I don't want them to wear a Muslim emblem on their clothing or be discriminated in anyway. However when it comes to security procedures Muslims should be checked to see if they hold the radical views expressed in their religion. If they do not then they should have no problem and be treated well. However we need to realize that Islam advocates many ghastly things. So when dealing with members of this religion we need to make sure that they don't believe or will not follow the evil commands of this religion. You still haven't answered my question though. Would you not agree that a Neo Nazi who believes in a violent overthrow of the United States and who openly support white supremacist terrorists is a security risk. Then if a Muslim believes in a violent overthrowing of the government and supports Islamic terrorists then we need to be aware of this.

HA I did answer your question, you are now trying to qualify the terms to make it look impossible to disagree - or perhaps to convince yourself that other people are intractable and unreasonable, whatever. Fuck that. You're proposing a fundamental violation of people's civil liberties, because you don't like their beliefs.

Hate speech that incites to various things is already illegal - and that's applied no matter your beliefs (or is supposed to be.) But first you have to DO SOMETHING, and in this country at least you are not under legally sanctioned suspicion of guilt for DOING NOTHING just because Maria doesn't like you.

Which is why we aren't them, no matter how much you want us to be.

 

[Mariatenebre]

She probably wants a state where the head is an absolute autocrat -- you know, like Ramses.

While I liked Ramses 2 I do not want an autocract. I want a democracy. However I want us to know the people we are dealing with.

We have a word for them, they're called terrorists.

You catch them with intelligence networks and good police work, not by stopping every single person from an entire region of the world and strip searching them.

Perhaps you believe the U.S. airport security system (which has repeatedly been proven ineffective and wasteful) applied larger and grander on a global scale is the correct solution?

And people who support terrorism and are part of an ideology that advocates terrorism could be potential threats.

What I think that should happen when dealing with adherents of groups that promote violence is merely in situations of secuity by searching this person's background and seeing if they are affiliated with any groups that promote terror or support the terrorist mandates in their ideology. We should not hurt them or be unjust with them. However we should know who we are dealing with.

The problem is that virtually every indication you've given in this discussion is that you believe all of Islam is hateful and violent so... what is your proposed solution?

Islam is a hateful and violent religion, so is Christianity, Judaism and Zoroastrianism. However not all adherents of these religions are hateful and violent and when it comes to matters of security we need to search the backgrounds of said adherents and makes sure that they do not cosign with the hateful ideas found in said religions or ideologies. We should not treat them unfairly when dealing with them but we need to know who we are dealing with.

 

[TX-Beau]

No I don't want them to wear a Muslim emblem on their clothing or be discriminated in anyway. However when it comes to security procedures Muslims should be checked to see if they hold the radical views expressed in their religion....

dis·crim·i·na·tion noun \dis-ˌkri-mə-ˈnā-shən\

Definition of DISCRIMINATION

1 a : the act of discriminating
b : the process by which two stimuli differing in some aspect are responded to differently

2: the quality or power of finely distinguishing

3 a : the act, practice, or an instance of discriminating categorically rather than individually
b : prejudiced or prejudicial outlook, action, or treatment <racial discrimination>

Actually discrimination is exactly what you are suggesting.

 

[xbuzzerx]

Mariatenebre, take the idea you are proposing about Muslims, and apply it to Christians to check their backgrounds to see if they have any ties to radical militias or anything else.

Now think about the size and the scope of the invasive disregard for people's rights that would be entailed in implementing that type of check system across borders, airports, everywhere.

And tell me how that would be any different from Germans making Jews walk around with the Star of David and be questioned and harassed everywhere.

Also, who gets to decide which "connections" are dangerous? You? You have basically indicated that any Palestinian is essentially suspect, if not worse, of either supporting violence or at least potentially supporting violence, so your solution is to take whole countries and lock them up?

Just think about how nuts this idea is.

 

[Callum]

I would have been 100% okay with Israel sending ground troops into Gaza two weeks ago. Wouldn't think twice about it. The terrorists residing need to be systematically exterminated like the filth they are. I am, however, pro-Palestine. There's a reason Egypt won't take the Strip, folks.

 

[Just_Believe18]

What is particularly upsetting about settlements in Israel is that once these buildings are put in place, you create permanent Jewish residencies that will not be removed. Of course this is going to upset the Palestinians because it makes them feel like they're being enclosed and bred out.

 

[palemale]

Ulster is a province...what are u talking about "grotesque" acts committed there? It was a security issue and what was done had to be done mostly to restore order from the act of IRA troublemakers and other elements like the criminal murderous Sinn Féin led by thug adams.. Why would the UK be condemned for that? Simply no comparison and not on a level with the Palestinian issue.

I guess they don't teach the history of British occupation of Ireland in British schools. It is a pretty sordid affair.

For starters, are you aware that Britain currently occupies only a part of the Province of Ulster? Ulster has 9 counties, but only 6 are under British occupation. Three counties - Donegal, Cavan and Monaghan - are governed by the Republic of Ireland. When the British partitioned Ireland, they kept the only part of the country that was industrialized, but carved out the largest chunk that they believed would keep the territory Protestant majority. Hence, they carved out three Catholic majority counties and left them under the rule of the Irish Free State.

The IRA was not an armed group or "terrorist organization" when "the Troubles" began in Northern Ireland. They were a response to the overwhelming Protestant violence against the Catholic community, which was engaged in peaceful protest for civil rights, inspired in large part by the non-violent Civil Rights Movement in the United States. The British Government sided with the Protestant Majority and oppressed the Catholic minority. And the British never received the universal outrage that Israel has.

 

[JohnnyAnger]

.

What I think that should happen when dealing with adherents of groups that promote violence is merely in situations of secuity by searching this person's background and seeing if they are affiliated with any groups that promote terror or support the terrorist mandates in their ideology. We should not hurt them or be unjust with them. However we should know who we are dealing with.

Who judges whether groups promote violence? I have been part of a few groups in the past that the government have decided violent. One of these groups had all of our movements and meetings monitored by the police, with all our names and numbers being taken down. Now this group was in no way violent but we were part of a much larger movement in which property damage had happened, should I be screened for this? Secondly, when I regularly pass through passport controls I have to go into more searches because the French police caught me taking food and clothes to refugees in Calais. Also in this horrid dystopian world would you have to force people to admitting to membership of these groups assigned violent?

 

[TX-Beau]

I guess they don't teach the history of British occupation of Ireland in British schools. It is a pretty sordid affair.

For starters, are you aware that Britain currently occupies only a part of the Province of Ulster? Ulster has 9 counties, but only 6 are under British occupation. Three counties - Donegal, Cavan and Monaghan - are governed by the Republic of Ireland. When the British partitioned Ireland, they kept the only part of the country that was industrialized, but carved out the largest chunk that they believed would keep the territory Protestant majority. Hence, they carved out three Catholic majority counties and left them under the rule of the Irish Free State.

The IRA was not an armed group or "terrorist organization" when "the Troubles" began in Northern Ireland. They were a response to the overwhelming Protestant violence against the Catholic community, which was engaged in peaceful protest for civil rights, inspired in large part by the non-violent Civil Rights Movement in the United States. The British Government sided with the Protestant Majority and oppressed the Catholic minority. And the British never received the universal outrage that Israel has.

Be careful what you say or Maria is going to put Catholics and Protestants on her profile list of violent religions.

Now if we toss in the Balkans we can have the trifecta of insoluble problems because of pointless bitchery.

 

[JohnnyAnger]

I guess they don't teach the history of British occupation of Ireland in British schools. It is a pretty sordid affair.
.

They really do not teach anything to do with it apart from the Easter Rising. I think this may simply be because it may still be a tad to close to home for a lot of people teaching it, you have to remember the last bomb to go off in Britain was 1996 and the army is still occupy the Northern states of Ireland. It would be a bit political to try and teach this to 16 year olds, but I do think people are learning more and more about our horrible actions on the North.

 

[palemale]

They really do not teach anything to do with it apart from the Easter Rising. I think this may simply be because it may still be a tad to close to home for a lot of people teaching it, you have to remember the last bomb to go off in Britain was 1996 and the army is still occupy the Northern states of Ireland. It would be a bit political to try and teach this to 16 year olds, but I do think people are learning more and more about our horrible actions on the North.

That is probably not unique to the UK. We never learned the gory details of the Civil Rights movement in school, either. For example, I'm sure few Americans are aware that state and local government officials were often complicit in lynchings of African Americans, that crowds of Southerners would come out to the square with their children to watch extra-judicial hangings of people never convicted of a crime, and that white juries would not convict cold blooded white murderers if their victim was black.

I suspect France doesn't teach all the details of the Algerian War, and Japan doesn't teach about WWII atrocities it committed.

My point, though, is that Israel is isolated and relatively weak compared to the UK, Russia and China, who all have ongoing occupations of other peoples and countries yet do not get wide spread condemnation for it.

 

[Kulindahr]

HA I did answer your question, you are now trying to qualify the terms to make it look impossible to disagree - or perhaps to convince yourself that other people are intractable and unreasonable, whatever. Fuck that. You're proposing a fundamental violation of people's civil liberties, because you don't like their beliefs.

Hate speech that incites to various things is already illegal - and that's applied no matter your beliefs (or is supposed to be.) But first you have to DO SOMETHING, and in this country at least you are not under legally sanctioned suspicion of guilt for DOING NOTHING just because Maria doesn't like you.

Which is why we aren't them, no matter how much you want us to be.

I'd be interested in knowing if there are countries represented here where at least some of Maria's posts would be considered hate speech.

 

[Kulindahr]

Islam is a hateful and violent religion, so is Christianity, Judaism and Zoroastrianism. However not all adherents of these religions are hateful and violent and when it comes to matters of security we need to search the backgrounds of said adherents and makes sure that they do not cosign with the hateful ideas found in said religions or ideologies. We should not treat them unfairly when dealing with them but we need to know who we are dealing with.

Please give citations showing that the core teachings of Christianity and Judaism are hateful and lead to violence, or be considered either ignorant or lying.

 

[Kulindahr]

Mariatenebre, take the idea you are proposing about Muslims, and apply it to Christians to check their backgrounds to see if they have any ties to radical militias or anything else.

Now think about the size and the scope of the invasive disregard for people's rights that would be entailed in implementing that type of check system across borders, airports, everywhere.

And tell me how that would be any different from Germans making Jews walk around with the Star of David and be questioned and harassed everywhere.

Also, who gets to decide which "connections" are dangerous? You? You have basically indicated that any Palestinian is essentially suspect, if not worse, of either supporting violence or at least potentially supporting violence, so your solution is to take whole countries and lock them up?

Just think about how nuts this idea is.

It would take an absolute autocracy to make it work.

Except people wouldn't put up with an absolute autocracy, and would strike back. I don't think Maria would like what the angry populace would do to her for advocating the elimination of their liberty.

 

[MassRuss]

I'd be interested in knowing if there are countries represented here where at least some of Maria's posts would be considered hate speech.

I think the UK might qualify?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_laws_in_the_United_Kingdom

And Canada maybe?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_laws_in_Canada

 

[Kulindahr]

I think the UK might qualify?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_laws_in_the_United_Kingdom

And Canada maybe?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_laws_in_Canada

Sure looks like it.

 

[cgymike]

Sure looks like it.

I agree...it not only looks like it. It's a fact.

 

[AngolaZee]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noam_Chomsky

Noam Chomsky

Avram Noam Chomsky (born December 7, 1928) is an American linguist, philosopher,cognitive scientist, logician, historian, political critic, and activist. He is an Institute Professor and Professor (Emeritus) in the Department of Linguistics & Philosophy at MIT, where he has worked for over 50 years.
Being Jewish, Chomsky faced anti-semitism as a child, particularly from the Irish and German communities living in Philadelphia; he recalls German "beer parties" celebrating the fall of Paris to the Nazis.

http://www.chomsky.info/articles/20121104.htm

Even a single night in jail is enough to give a taste of what it means to be under the total control of some external force. And it hardly takes more than a day in Gaza to begin to appreciate what it must be like to try to survive in the world’s largest open-air prison, where a million and a half people, in the most densely populated area of the world, are constantly subject to random and often savage terror and arbitrary punishment, with no purpose other than to humiliate and degrade, and with the further goal of ensuring that Palestinian hopes for a decent future will be crushed and that the overwhelming global support for a diplomatic settlement that will grant these rights will be nullified.

please read the rest of the article at the url provided. If you have the chance I suggest you read the rest of the articles Chomsky has written on a broad range of issues.. Hopefully it opens your eyes

 

[Mariatenebre]

Please give citations showing that the core teachings of Christianity and Judaism are hateful and lead to violence, or be considered either ignorant or lying.

Well that's easy.

http://www.evilbible.com/Ritual_Human_Sacrifice.htm
http://www.evilbible.com/Rape.htm
http://www.evilbible.com/Murder.htm

Jesus himself like Mohammad supported murdering those who would not accept him as ruler.

Luke 19:27 But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them--bring them here and kill them in front of me.'"

I'd be interested in knowing if there are countries represented here where at least some of Maria's posts would be considered hate speech.

I am for hate speech. We have a right to hate any group out there. Where I draw the line is with people encouraging violence against innocent civilians.

Mariatenebre, take the idea you are proposing about Muslims, and apply it to Christians to check their backgrounds to see if they have any ties to radical militias or anything else.

Now think about the size and the scope of the invasive disregard for people's rights that would be entailed in implementing that type of check system across borders, airports, everywhere.

And tell me how that would be any different from Germans making Jews walk around with the Star of David and be questioned and harassed everywhere.

Also, who gets to decide which "connections" are dangerous? You? You have basically indicated that any Palestinian is essentially suspect, if not worse, of either supporting violence or at least potentially supporting violence, so your solution is to take whole countries and lock them up?

Just think about how nuts this idea is.

I actually support checking Christians for violent ties as well. I am not saying that we should force any group to wear any piece of clothing or to be harassed. However I do think that everyone. Not just Jews, Christians or Muslims but everyone when they are in a security procedure should be checked to see what their ties are and if they support any violent group.

Next I have never said that all Palestinians are suspect. Only the Muslims who actively support Hamas as well as violence. I don't want anyone to be locked up unless they have actually done something. However I do think that everyone when they enter a place of high security should be screened.